DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 68198--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: marxman
Date: April 23, 2025, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Charitynjw link ---
>
> [quote author=marxman link=topic=5305.msg67803#msg67803
date=1745099785]
> Hi Guys,
>
> I received a new mail from DCBL today. I'll ignore this. Just
adding this here for the record.
>
> However, I sent the email to the DPO@TPS and they have
acknowledged the change on their system (apparently).
> And, regarding SAR: is that the comment from b789 [on March
21, 2025, 05:44:52
pm](
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/dcbl-parking-charge-nightmare-wrong-address-escalated-fee!/msg63660/#msg63660)<br
/>? I've sent this to the DPO@TPS.
>
> If that's not the SAR (subject access request) could you
please tell me who to send it to? (DCBL or TPS)?
>
> Kind regards.
>
--- End Quote ---
For clarity, was this recent DCBL
̷s̷c̷a̷m̷.̷ letter sent to your
current address?
[/quote]
Yes that's the latest.
#Post#: 68200--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: marxman
Date: April 23, 2025, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789, I'll follow that.
#Post#: 76414--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: marxman
Date: June 13, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
Today I received the mail from `DCB Legal` which is different
than `DCBL` from the previous mails.
I have attached the document. Could you please advise if there
is anything I should do at this point?
Kindestest regards.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 76441--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: b789
Date: June 14, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to that Letter of Claim (LoC) by email to
info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC yourself with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to Letter of Claim. Your ref: [reference
no.]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim dated 3 June 2025, contains
insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of
evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in
complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims.
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
>
> If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
establish keeper liability.
>
> As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a
claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and
seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and
vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79845--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: marxman
Date: July 6, 2025, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, this is the response I received from them (3 days ago):
Dear JohnDoe,
We write in response to correspondence received in our office
dated 14th June 2025.
We have made a record of the contents of your correspondence and
noted this on your file accordingly.
Prior to the issue of the parking charge, our Client applied to
the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the
Vehicle. Your name and address (xxxxxx) were provided. Our
Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that
address. Having not received payment, address verification was
carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your new
address was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued
to you at the traced address (yyyyyy).
Our client took reasonable steps to identify you and your
correct address; but it is ultimately your responsibility as the
vehicles registered keeper, to update the DVLA of any changes to
your registered address through the use of your vehicles V5.
Further to the above the notices referenced asked you to either
make payment or, if you were not driving, nominate a driver by
providing their name and full address. You did neither and as
such you are now pursued on the basis that you were driving. On
the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you
would have nominated
The parking charge was not affixed to the vehicle because our
client utilises Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”)
technology on the land where the parking charge was issued in
order to manage the parking. This means that cameras capable of
accurately recognising the vehicle registration number of a
vehicle are constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the
land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it enters and
exits the land. Any vehicle found to have breached the terms of
parking will be issued with a parking charge via the post.
When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site
are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and
agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site.
Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage
means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. The
breach in contract would make you liable for a parking charge.
The signage on site, is erected in line with our Clients
regulators (BPA) in order to allow a reasonable driver to be
notified of the terms and conditions operating on the site prior
to them parking their vehicle. As such the signage on site, is
sufficient given the size and capacity of the car park.
The terms and conditions on the signs stated that a maximum stay
term was operating on the land and remaining in excess of the
same, would result in a parking charge being issued. The vehicle
was recorded on the land in excess of the maximum time permitted
and as such the parking charge was issued correctly.
You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you
are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and
there are parking terms in place. As the driver of the vehicle
it is your responsibility at all material times to ensure you
understand the terms and conditions operating on the land prior
to exiting your vehicle. Furthermore, it is your responsibility
to ensure that you have read and understood the terms operating
prior to parking your vehicle.
The Notice to Keeper was issued to you on 3rd January 2025. You
were afforded the opportunity to; appeal the parking charge,
transfer liability to the driver (if it was not you) or make
payment. Neither a successful appeal, nor an adequate nomination
were received, yet payment remains outstanding.
The Reminder Notice was issued to you on 3rd February 2025. This
notice reiterated that payment was outstanding and confirmed
that legal action may be taken and additional costs incurred if
the parking charge was not paid.
If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are
not enclosed with this letter, it is because we have deemed the
request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the
substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your
attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you
that both parties are expected to act reasonably and
proportionately.
DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to
resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.
However, In light of the above, I can confirm that our client
would be agreeable to settle this matter in the parameters
outlined below.
*WITHOUT PREJUDICE*
In relation to the above matter.
I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £85.00 in full
and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding
balance is £170.00.　　　
Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same
within 30 days. Payment can be made via our website
www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or
via bank transfer:
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　
Sort Code: xxxxxx
　　
Account no: yyyyyy
　　　
When making payment please ensure you include the following
reference number, 7xxxxxxxxxxxTPS, to enable us to allocate it
to the correct case. 　　　
If you are not agreeable, we may continue to follow the Court
process as normal.
We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to
date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to
us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.
Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to
make payment over the telephone or online at
HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
Kind Regards,
Jane Doe,
Administration Associate
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79881--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: b789
Date: July 7, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If proof were ever needed that DCB Legal are firm of incompetent
baboons, you have it in the response above. If it were me who
received that letter, I would email them back with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Jane Doe,
>
> Thank you for your letter dated [insert date], which I read
with a mixture of disbelief and reluctant amusement.
>
> Your attempt to assert liability on the basis that I “did
neither” (i.e., pay or nominate a driver) and therefore “must”
have been the driver is not only legally baseless but betrays a
fundamental misunderstanding of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (Schedule 4). As you are no doubt aware—or ought to be,
given your firm’s purported area of expertise—keeper liability
under PoFA is not automatic and is strictly conditional upon
full compliance with the statutory requirements. Your client’s
Notice to Keeper fails to meet those requirements. Consequently,
there is no lawful basis on which to pursue the registered
keeper.
>
> Your assertion that “on the balance of probabilities” I must
have been the driver because I did not nominate someone else is
not only speculative but legally irrelevant. There is no
statutory obligation on the keeper to identify the driver, and
your attempt to reverse the burden of proof is as desperate as
it is inept. If this is the standard of legal reasoning employed
at DCB Legal, it is little wonder your firm has become a byword
for procedural overreach and amateurish incompetence.
>
> As for your client's generous offer to settle for £85, I refer
you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971). You may
consider this matter closed unless and until your client is
prepared to issue a fully compliant claim, supported by evidence
and legal argument that rises above the level of speculative
fiction.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80033--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL Parking Charge Nightmare: Wrong Address & Escalated
Fee!
DIR By: marxman
Date: July 8, 2025, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've replied back with that response not only to that lady, but
also CC'd the `info@dcblegal.co.uk`. Thanks so much <3
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page